Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 non-binding ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 24 בינו׳ 2024 ב-10:17 מאת ‪Rahul Vats‬‏ <‪ rah.sharm...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ > +1 non-binding > > Verified below providers with our example DAGS. > >- apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.17.0rc1 >- apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive==6.5.0rc1 >-

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 non-binding Tested my changes and example DAGs without encountering errors. Best, Wei > On Jan 24, 2024, at 4:18 PM, rom sharon wrote: > > +1 non-binding > > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 24 בינו׳ 2024 ב-10:17 מאת ‪Rahul Vats‬‏ <‪ > rah.sharm...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ > >> +1 non-binding >> >> Verified below

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 (non-binding) On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 13:48 rom sharon, wrote: > +1 non-binding > > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 24 בינו׳ 2024 ב-10:17 מאת ‪Rahul Vats‬‏ <‪ > rah.sharm...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ > > > +1 non-binding > > > > Verified below providers with our example DAGS. > > > >-

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 Non-binding. Thanks, Utkarsh Sharma On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:11 PM Pankaj Koti wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 13:48 rom sharon, wrote: > > > +1 non-binding > > > > ‫בתאריך יום ד׳, 24 בינו׳ 2024 ב-10:17 מאת ‪Rahul Vats‬‏ <‪ > > rah.sharm...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬ > > > > > +1

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

Right. That is why I was trying to make a distinction in the PR and in this discussion between CRUD-ing Dataset Objects/Definitions vs creating and deleting Dataset Events from the queue. Happy to standardize on whatever terminology to make sure things are understood and we can have a productive

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 non-binding -- Regards, Aritra Basu On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 8:02 PM Utkarsh Sharma wrote: > +1 Non-binding. > > Thanks, > Utkarsh Sharma > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 6:11 PM Pankaj Koti > wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024, 13:48 rom sharon, wrote: > > > > > +1

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

I also think it makes sense to allow people to create/update/delete Datasets via the API and eventually UI. Even if the dataset is not initially connected to a DAG, it's nice to be able to see in one place all the datasets and ML models that my dags can leverage. We allow people to create

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 5:33 PM Constance Martineau wrote: > I also think it makes sense to allow people to create/update/delete > Datasets via the API and eventually UI. Even if the dataset is not > initially connected to a DAG, it's nice to be able to see in one place all > the datasets and ML

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 non-binding Verified below providers with our example DAGS. - apache-airflow-providers-amazon==8.17.0rc1 - apache-airflow-providers-apache-hive==6.5.0rc1 - apache-airflow-providers-common-sql==1.11.0rc1 - apache-airflow-providers-databricks==6.1.0rc1 -

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

You're right. I didn't mean to say that the Connections and Datasets facilitate the same thing - they don't. I meant that Connections are also "useless" if no task is using that Connection - but we allow them to be created independently of dags. From that angle - I don't see how allowing Datasets

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

I'd love to hear what others - especially those who are involved in dataset creation and discussion more than me. I personally believe that conceptually connections and datasets are as far from each other as possible (I have no idea where the similarities of connections - which are essentially

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 (binding) checked source code, licences, signatures, and checksums and tested my changes; all look good. On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 4:22 PM Aritra Basu wrote: > +1 non-binding > > -- > Regards, > Aritra Basu > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024, 8:02 PM Utkarsh Sharma > wrote: > > > +1 Non-binding. > > >

Re: [DISCUSSION] Enhanced Multi-Tenant Dataset Management in Airflow: Potential First Steps

What I meant by update/delete operations was referring to Dataset objects themselves, not DatasetEvents. I also see no issue in allowing dataset changes to be registered externally. I admit that deleting datasets is probably irrelevant as even now they are not deleted, but instead orphaned after

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 (binding) checked binary reproduction, licences, signatures, and checksums. On my system the binary reproduction check for the source tarball did fail, but I spot verified the tarball contents are correct. I'm still investigating, but no reason to hold the release for this.

Re: [VOTE] January 2024 PR of the Month

+1 for #36537. Shubham On 2024-01-23, 3:03 PM, "Scheffler Jens (XC-AS/EAE-ADA-T)" mailto:jens.scheff...@de.bosch.com.inva>LID> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the

Re: [VOTE] Airflow Providers prepared on January 22, 2024

+1 (non-binding). ran some tests for amazon,google,ftp,snowflake,databricks,openlineage,mysql providers. On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:17 AM Jed Cunningham wrote: > +1 (binding) checked binary reproduction, licences, signatures, and > checksums. > > On my system the binary reproduction check for